Podcast appearances and mentions of susan liebell

I quote Susan in my book, Sustainability Simplified. In it you'll see how much John Locke influenced my long-term vision for the US to understand and solve our environmental problems. Learning about the Thirteenth Amendment, which (mostly) banned slavery, and its improbable path to passage and ratification led me to think about solving our environmental problems similarly.I learned that many people working to abolish slavery worked hard when drafting the US Constitution to make it able to support abolitionism and to disallow property in man. Slaveholders opposed them, so they accepted compromises. Still, they put enough into the Constitution to enable weakening the institution enough to eventually end it. I wondered if sustainability might have similar precedent, like some law or phrasing of the Constitution that might have disallowed polluting or depleting.It turns out there was. It was in John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. The more I researched the man, his writings, and our Constitution, the more he seemed to apply to our environmental problems. That research led me to a paper by Susan Liebell, which I link to below.My conversation with Susan explore the application of his work and theories.Her paper that brought me to her: The Text and Context of "Enough and as Good": John Locke as the Foundation of an Environmental Liberalism Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Republican Party held its nominating convention a week ago in Milwaukee, formally nominating former President Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, and also his vice-presidential pick, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). Just before the convention kicked off, Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. The GOP convention was unique in having the former president there over all days of the event. But since the convention concluded, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not be standing for re-election, and immediately endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to become the Democratic nominee for president. As we are taping this podcast on Wednesday, July 24th, Vice President Kamala Harris looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee, about 4 weeks before the Democratic convention. It has been a head spinning two weeks of politics in the United States and the dynamics and focus of the presidential race has shifted dramatically. To take stock of where the race stands about 100 days out, we have two experts on the presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is the Executive Dean for Public Policy and Public Service Programs at the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, both at Hofstra University. Dr. Daniel E. Ponder is the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. Meena and Dan are the co-editors OF a new De Gruyter Series in Presidential Politics, Leadership, and Policy Making. The first volume is Evaluating the Obama Presidency: From Transformational Goals to Governing Realities (De Gruyter, 2024) edited by Meena Bose and Paul Fritz. It includes a chapter on presidential leverage and Obama's decision making on Syria by Dan Ponder and Jeff VanDenBerg. Previously, Meena joined the podcast to discuss her book Executive Policymaking: The Role of the OMB in the Presidency (co-authored with Andrew Rudalevige) and Dan also chatted with Lilly about his book Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval, and the American State. They are also veterans of Postscript, having come on the show in the past few weeks to discuss the state of the presidential election and consider it in historical and institutional context.  We spend this conversation talking about the changing dynamics in the presidential field, and the decisions made by President Biden to step aside. We go over the conventions, discussing the recent Republican convention and what the Democratic convention may be like in a few weeks' time. We talk about issues that may define the race or are defining the race, including the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights. We also, as good political scientists, discuss the prospective options for the vice-presidential selection that Vice President Harris will have to make over the next few weeks. During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari's Substack post at Good Politics/Bad Politics on Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign kickoff event in West Allis, WI on Tuesday, July 23. The Daily's episode focusing on the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Susan Liebell's piece in The Medium from April on Vice President Kamala Harris and Reproductive Rights. Bret Stephen's op-ed at the New York Times titled “Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Republican Party held its nominating convention a week ago in Milwaukee, formally nominating former President Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, and also his vice-presidential pick, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). Just before the convention kicked off, Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. The GOP convention was unique in having the former president there over all days of the event. But since the convention concluded, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not be standing for re-election, and immediately endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to become the Democratic nominee for president. As we are taping this podcast on Wednesday, July 24th, Vice President Kamala Harris looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee, about 4 weeks before the Democratic convention. It has been a head spinning two weeks of politics in the United States and the dynamics and focus of the presidential race has shifted dramatically. To take stock of where the race stands about 100 days out, we have two experts on the presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is the Executive Dean for Public Policy and Public Service Programs at the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, both at Hofstra University. Dr. Daniel E. Ponder is the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. Meena and Dan are the co-editors OF a new De Gruyter Series in Presidential Politics, Leadership, and Policy Making. The first volume is Evaluating the Obama Presidency: From Transformational Goals to Governing Realities (De Gruyter, 2024) edited by Meena Bose and Paul Fritz. It includes a chapter on presidential leverage and Obama's decision making on Syria by Dan Ponder and Jeff VanDenBerg. Previously, Meena joined the podcast to discuss her book Executive Policymaking: The Role of the OMB in the Presidency (co-authored with Andrew Rudalevige) and Dan also chatted with Lilly about his book Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval, and the American State. They are also veterans of Postscript, having come on the show in the past few weeks to discuss the state of the presidential election and consider it in historical and institutional context.  We spend this conversation talking about the changing dynamics in the presidential field, and the decisions made by President Biden to step aside. We go over the conventions, discussing the recent Republican convention and what the Democratic convention may be like in a few weeks' time. We talk about issues that may define the race or are defining the race, including the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights. We also, as good political scientists, discuss the prospective options for the vice-presidential selection that Vice President Harris will have to make over the next few weeks. During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari's Substack post at Good Politics/Bad Politics on Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign kickoff event in West Allis, WI on Tuesday, July 23. The Daily's episode focusing on the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Susan Liebell's piece in The Medium from April on Vice President Kamala Harris and Reproductive Rights. Bret Stephen's op-ed at the New York Times titled “Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The Republican Party held its nominating convention a week ago in Milwaukee, formally nominating former President Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, and also his vice-presidential pick, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). Just before the convention kicked off, Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. The GOP convention was unique in having the former president there over all days of the event. But since the convention concluded, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not be standing for re-election, and immediately endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to become the Democratic nominee for president. As we are taping this podcast on Wednesday, July 24th, Vice President Kamala Harris looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee, about 4 weeks before the Democratic convention. It has been a head spinning two weeks of politics in the United States and the dynamics and focus of the presidential race has shifted dramatically. To take stock of where the race stands about 100 days out, we have two experts on the presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is the Executive Dean for Public Policy and Public Service Programs at the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, both at Hofstra University. Dr. Daniel E. Ponder is the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. Meena and Dan are the co-editors OF a new De Gruyter Series in Presidential Politics, Leadership, and Policy Making. The first volume is Evaluating the Obama Presidency: From Transformational Goals to Governing Realities (De Gruyter, 2024) edited by Meena Bose and Paul Fritz. It includes a chapter on presidential leverage and Obama's decision making on Syria by Dan Ponder and Jeff VanDenBerg. Previously, Meena joined the podcast to discuss her book Executive Policymaking: The Role of the OMB in the Presidency (co-authored with Andrew Rudalevige) and Dan also chatted with Lilly about his book Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval, and the American State. They are also veterans of Postscript, having come on the show in the past few weeks to discuss the state of the presidential election and consider it in historical and institutional context.  We spend this conversation talking about the changing dynamics in the presidential field, and the decisions made by President Biden to step aside. We go over the conventions, discussing the recent Republican convention and what the Democratic convention may be like in a few weeks' time. We talk about issues that may define the race or are defining the race, including the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights. We also, as good political scientists, discuss the prospective options for the vice-presidential selection that Vice President Harris will have to make over the next few weeks. During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari's Substack post at Good Politics/Bad Politics on Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign kickoff event in West Allis, WI on Tuesday, July 23. The Daily's episode focusing on the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Susan Liebell's piece in The Medium from April on Vice President Kamala Harris and Reproductive Rights. Bret Stephen's op-ed at the New York Times titled “Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The Republican Party held its nominating convention a week ago in Milwaukee, formally nominating former President Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, and also his vice-presidential pick, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). Just before the convention kicked off, Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. The GOP convention was unique in having the former president there over all days of the event. But since the convention concluded, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not be standing for re-election, and immediately endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to become the Democratic nominee for president. As we are taping this podcast on Wednesday, July 24th, Vice President Kamala Harris looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee, about 4 weeks before the Democratic convention. It has been a head spinning two weeks of politics in the United States and the dynamics and focus of the presidential race has shifted dramatically. To take stock of where the race stands about 100 days out, we have two experts on the presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is the Executive Dean for Public Policy and Public Service Programs at the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, both at Hofstra University. Dr. Daniel E. Ponder is the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. Meena and Dan are the co-editors OF a new De Gruyter Series in Presidential Politics, Leadership, and Policy Making. The first volume is Evaluating the Obama Presidency: From Transformational Goals to Governing Realities (De Gruyter, 2024) edited by Meena Bose and Paul Fritz. It includes a chapter on presidential leverage and Obama's decision making on Syria by Dan Ponder and Jeff VanDenBerg. Previously, Meena joined the podcast to discuss her book Executive Policymaking: The Role of the OMB in the Presidency (co-authored with Andrew Rudalevige) and Dan also chatted with Lilly about his book Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval, and the American State. They are also veterans of Postscript, having come on the show in the past few weeks to discuss the state of the presidential election and consider it in historical and institutional context.  We spend this conversation talking about the changing dynamics in the presidential field, and the decisions made by President Biden to step aside. We go over the conventions, discussing the recent Republican convention and what the Democratic convention may be like in a few weeks' time. We talk about issues that may define the race or are defining the race, including the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights. We also, as good political scientists, discuss the prospective options for the vice-presidential selection that Vice President Harris will have to make over the next few weeks. During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari's Substack post at Good Politics/Bad Politics on Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign kickoff event in West Allis, WI on Tuesday, July 23. The Daily's episode focusing on the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Susan Liebell's piece in The Medium from April on Vice President Kamala Harris and Reproductive Rights. Bret Stephen's op-ed at the New York Times titled “Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The Republican Party held its nominating convention a week ago in Milwaukee, formally nominating former President Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for the GOP, and also his vice-presidential pick, Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). Just before the convention kicked off, Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. The GOP convention was unique in having the former president there over all days of the event. But since the convention concluded, President Joe Biden has announced that he will not be standing for re-election, and immediately endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, to become the Democratic nominee for president. As we are taping this podcast on Wednesday, July 24th, Vice President Kamala Harris looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee, about 4 weeks before the Democratic convention. It has been a head spinning two weeks of politics in the United States and the dynamics and focus of the presidential race has shifted dramatically. To take stock of where the race stands about 100 days out, we have two experts on the presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is the Executive Dean for Public Policy and Public Service Programs at the Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs and director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, both at Hofstra University. Dr. Daniel E. Ponder is the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. Meena and Dan are the co-editors OF a new De Gruyter Series in Presidential Politics, Leadership, and Policy Making. The first volume is Evaluating the Obama Presidency: From Transformational Goals to Governing Realities (De Gruyter, 2024) edited by Meena Bose and Paul Fritz. It includes a chapter on presidential leverage and Obama's decision making on Syria by Dan Ponder and Jeff VanDenBerg. Previously, Meena joined the podcast to discuss her book Executive Policymaking: The Role of the OMB in the Presidency (co-authored with Andrew Rudalevige) and Dan also chatted with Lilly about his book Presidential Leverage: Presidents, Approval, and the American State. They are also veterans of Postscript, having come on the show in the past few weeks to discuss the state of the presidential election and consider it in historical and institutional context.  We spend this conversation talking about the changing dynamics in the presidential field, and the decisions made by President Biden to step aside. We go over the conventions, discussing the recent Republican convention and what the Democratic convention may be like in a few weeks' time. We talk about issues that may define the race or are defining the race, including the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights. We also, as good political scientists, discuss the prospective options for the vice-presidential selection that Vice President Harris will have to make over the next few weeks. During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari's Substack post at Good Politics/Bad Politics on Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign kickoff event in West Allis, WI on Tuesday, July 23. The Daily's episode focusing on the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Susan Liebell's piece in The Medium from April on Vice President Kamala Harris and Reproductive Rights. Bret Stephen's op-ed at the New York Times titled “Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Thursday, June 27th, President Joe Biden and Trump debated for 90 minutes without a live audience or the usually provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Instead, two CNN journalists – Dana Bash and Jake Tapper – asked the questions. Not only was the format a departure but the timing was unusually early for a presidential debate. Today's podcast is a conversation between Susan Liebell at Saint Joseph's University and Dr. Daniel E. Ponder, the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. We started with a little context about American debates (including the first televised debate between the 1960 presidential candidates Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy). Dan outlined some big moments in previous presidential debates and whether they mattered in November. We then assessed the performances of Biden and Trump – and how that might affect voters. Some items we mentioned: Did reading the transcript leave people with a more positive view of Biden? “Our Debate Wraps:How the system failed. How Biden's stubbornness hurt him. And how it will play in November” from Jonathan Bernstein, Julia Azari, and David S. Bernstein on Good Politics/Bad Politics, June 27, 2024 Gretchen Whitmer Wants a Gen X President — in 2028” The Interview via The New York Times, June 22, 2024 Lilly Goren and Susan's earlier conversation with Meena Bose and Dan Ponder, “Previewing the 2024 Presidential Race,” Postscript via New Books Network, June 17, 2024 Biden's strong performance in the VP debate with Paul Ryan in 2012 in full here with key moments at 11:11 (Iran), 21:48 (jobs), 32.43 (Medicare and social security), and 1:13 (abortion). Elaine Kamarck's Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates (Brookings, 2016) and Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Again (Brookings, 2016) Nicolle Wallace, Trump lied “as often as he breathed” on MSNBC, June 27, 2024. CNN Flash Poll, June 27, 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

On Thursday, June 27th, President Joe Biden and Trump debated for 90 minutes without a live audience or the usually provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Instead, two CNN journalists – Dana Bash and Jake Tapper – asked the questions. Not only was the format a departure but the timing was unusually early for a presidential debate. Today's podcast is a conversation between Susan Liebell at Saint Joseph's University and Dr. Daniel E. Ponder, the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. We started with a little context about American debates (including the first televised debate between the 1960 presidential candidates Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy). Dan outlined some big moments in previous presidential debates and whether they mattered in November. We then assessed the performances of Biden and Trump – and how that might affect voters. Some items we mentioned: Did reading the transcript leave people with a more positive view of Biden? “Our Debate Wraps:How the system failed. How Biden's stubbornness hurt him. And how it will play in November” from Jonathan Bernstein, Julia Azari, and David S. Bernstein on Good Politics/Bad Politics, June 27, 2024 Gretchen Whitmer Wants a Gen X President — in 2028” The Interview via The New York Times, June 22, 2024 Lilly Goren and Susan's earlier conversation with Meena Bose and Dan Ponder, “Previewing the 2024 Presidential Race,” Postscript via New Books Network, June 17, 2024 Biden's strong performance in the VP debate with Paul Ryan in 2012 in full here with key moments at 11:11 (Iran), 21:48 (jobs), 32.43 (Medicare and social security), and 1:13 (abortion). Elaine Kamarck's Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates (Brookings, 2016) and Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Again (Brookings, 2016) Nicolle Wallace, Trump lied “as often as he breathed” on MSNBC, June 27, 2024. CNN Flash Poll, June 27, 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

On Thursday, June 27th, President Joe Biden and Trump debated for 90 minutes without a live audience or the usually provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Instead, two CNN journalists – Dana Bash and Jake Tapper – asked the questions. Not only was the format a departure but the timing was unusually early for a presidential debate. Today's podcast is a conversation between Susan Liebell at Saint Joseph's University and Dr. Daniel E. Ponder, the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. We started with a little context about American debates (including the first televised debate between the 1960 presidential candidates Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy). Dan outlined some big moments in previous presidential debates and whether they mattered in November. We then assessed the performances of Biden and Trump – and how that might affect voters. Some items we mentioned: Did reading the transcript leave people with a more positive view of Biden? “Our Debate Wraps:How the system failed. How Biden's stubbornness hurt him. And how it will play in November” from Jonathan Bernstein, Julia Azari, and David S. Bernstein on Good Politics/Bad Politics, June 27, 2024 Gretchen Whitmer Wants a Gen X President — in 2028” The Interview via The New York Times, June 22, 2024 Lilly Goren and Susan's earlier conversation with Meena Bose and Dan Ponder, “Previewing the 2024 Presidential Race,” Postscript via New Books Network, June 17, 2024 Biden's strong performance in the VP debate with Paul Ryan in 2012 in full here with key moments at 11:11 (Iran), 21:48 (jobs), 32.43 (Medicare and social security), and 1:13 (abortion). Elaine Kamarck's Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates (Brookings, 2016) and Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Again (Brookings, 2016) Nicolle Wallace, Trump lied “as often as he breathed” on MSNBC, June 27, 2024. CNN Flash Poll, June 27, 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

On Thursday, June 27th, President Joe Biden and Trump debated for 90 minutes without a live audience or the usually provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Instead, two CNN journalists – Dana Bash and Jake Tapper – asked the questions. Not only was the format a departure but the timing was unusually early for a presidential debate. Today's podcast is a conversation between Susan Liebell at Saint Joseph's University and Dr. Daniel E. Ponder, the L.E. Meador Professor of Political Science and Director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship at Drury University. We started with a little context about American debates (including the first televised debate between the 1960 presidential candidates Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy). Dan outlined some big moments in previous presidential debates and whether they mattered in November. We then assessed the performances of Biden and Trump – and how that might affect voters. Some items we mentioned: Did reading the transcript leave people with a more positive view of Biden? “Our Debate Wraps:How the system failed. How Biden's stubbornness hurt him. And how it will play in November” from Jonathan Bernstein, Julia Azari, and David S. Bernstein on Good Politics/Bad Politics, June 27, 2024 Gretchen Whitmer Wants a Gen X President — in 2028” The Interview via The New York Times, June 22, 2024 Lilly Goren and Susan's earlier conversation with Meena Bose and Dan Ponder, “Previewing the 2024 Presidential Race,” Postscript via New Books Network, June 17, 2024 Biden's strong performance in the VP debate with Paul Ryan in 2012 in full here with key moments at 11:11 (Iran), 21:48 (jobs), 32.43 (Medicare and social security), and 1:13 (abortion). Elaine Kamarck's Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates (Brookings, 2016) and Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Again (Brookings, 2016) Nicolle Wallace, Trump lied “as often as he breathed” on MSNBC, June 27, 2024. CNN Flash Poll, June 27, 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first presidential debate will be held on June 27th, 2024 and the Republicans are heading to Milwaukee (a city Donald Trump recently called “horrible” and crime-ridden). Lilly Goren and Susan Liebell had a wide ranging discussion including analysis of the upcoming debate, summer conventions, party platforms, and polling with three experts. Dr. Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and a prolific media commentator on politics. Her scholarship focuses on the American presidency, political parties, political communication and American political development. Her most recent public facing pieces on are “Making sense of the 2024 election:When nothing seems to make sense, social science can still help” and “Checking in on Biden and Political Time.” Dr. Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who focuses on US politics, Political Parties, Congress the Presidency, Elections, and Democracy. He is now co-writing Good Politics/Bad Politics (a “plain newsletter about government and elections in the U.S.”) with Julia and David S. Bernstein. He recently wrote “How Debates Work. And all the things they don't - and shouldn't – do” and “Trump Acts Like an Idiot. Don't Blame It on Age.” Dr. Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Politics at the University of Denver. He writes about political parties, American Politics, polarization, nominations, state legislatures, social networks, campaigns and elections. He can be found on Substack as Tusk and recently published “When debates are no longer automatic:Why Biden and Trump are debating and what they hope to get out of it” and “The Republican State Party Network: A deeper dive into party platforms, with some raised eyebrows at Michigan.“ During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari and Seth Masket's June 27 live-blog of the first Presidential Debate will be at Arena. Follow them on social media for updates on what will be a GREAT conversation. Nat Cohen, “If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.” New York Times, 6/15/24 (on infrequent voters) Seth Masket, “It's not just Texas State GOPs veer to the extremes on policy and democracy.” 6/7/24 (on extremism in state party platforms) Erika Franklin Fowler, 6/19/24 Bluesky post on advertising when candidates are well-known The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project available here and summarized on Jenn White with Todd Swillich on podcast 1A, “If You Can Keep It” (on conservative nationalist “platform” that is not authored by GOP). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The first presidential debate will be held on June 27th, 2024 and the Republicans are heading to Milwaukee (a city Donald Trump recently called “horrible” and crime-ridden). Lilly Goren and Susan Liebell had a wide ranging discussion including analysis of the upcoming debate, summer conventions, party platforms, and polling with three experts. Dr. Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and a prolific media commentator on politics. Her scholarship focuses on the American presidency, political parties, political communication and American political development. Her most recent public facing pieces on are “Making sense of the 2024 election:When nothing seems to make sense, social science can still help” and “Checking in on Biden and Political Time.” Dr. Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who focuses on US politics, Political Parties, Congress the Presidency, Elections, and Democracy. He is now co-writing Good Politics/Bad Politics (a “plain newsletter about government and elections in the U.S.”) with Julia and David S. Bernstein. He recently wrote “How Debates Work. And all the things they don't - and shouldn't – do” and “Trump Acts Like an Idiot. Don't Blame It on Age.” Dr. Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Politics at the University of Denver. He writes about political parties, American Politics, polarization, nominations, state legislatures, social networks, campaigns and elections. He can be found on Substack as Tusk and recently published “When debates are no longer automatic:Why Biden and Trump are debating and what they hope to get out of it” and “The Republican State Party Network: A deeper dive into party platforms, with some raised eyebrows at Michigan.“ During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari and Seth Masket's June 27 live-blog of the first Presidential Debate will be at Arena. Follow them on social media for updates on what will be a GREAT conversation. Nat Cohen, “If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.” New York Times, 6/15/24 (on infrequent voters) Seth Masket, “It's not just Texas State GOPs veer to the extremes on policy and democracy.” 6/7/24 (on extremism in state party platforms) Erika Franklin Fowler, 6/19/24 Bluesky post on advertising when candidates are well-known The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project available here and summarized on Jenn White with Todd Swillich on podcast 1A, “If You Can Keep It” (on conservative nationalist “platform” that is not authored by GOP). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The first presidential debate will be held on June 27th, 2024 and the Republicans are heading to Milwaukee (a city Donald Trump recently called “horrible” and crime-ridden). Lilly Goren and Susan Liebell had a wide ranging discussion including analysis of the upcoming debate, summer conventions, party platforms, and polling with three experts. Dr. Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and a prolific media commentator on politics. Her scholarship focuses on the American presidency, political parties, political communication and American political development. Her most recent public facing pieces on are “Making sense of the 2024 election:When nothing seems to make sense, social science can still help” and “Checking in on Biden and Political Time.” Dr. Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who focuses on US politics, Political Parties, Congress the Presidency, Elections, and Democracy. He is now co-writing Good Politics/Bad Politics (a “plain newsletter about government and elections in the U.S.”) with Julia and David S. Bernstein. He recently wrote “How Debates Work. And all the things they don't - and shouldn't – do” and “Trump Acts Like an Idiot. Don't Blame It on Age.” Dr. Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Politics at the University of Denver. He writes about political parties, American Politics, polarization, nominations, state legislatures, social networks, campaigns and elections. He can be found on Substack as Tusk and recently published “When debates are no longer automatic:Why Biden and Trump are debating and what they hope to get out of it” and “The Republican State Party Network: A deeper dive into party platforms, with some raised eyebrows at Michigan.“ During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari and Seth Masket's June 27 live-blog of the first Presidential Debate will be at Arena. Follow them on social media for updates on what will be a GREAT conversation. Nat Cohen, “If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.” New York Times, 6/15/24 (on infrequent voters) Seth Masket, “It's not just Texas State GOPs veer to the extremes on policy and democracy.” 6/7/24 (on extremism in state party platforms) Erika Franklin Fowler, 6/19/24 Bluesky post on advertising when candidates are well-known The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project available here and summarized on Jenn White with Todd Swillich on podcast 1A, “If You Can Keep It” (on conservative nationalist “platform” that is not authored by GOP). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The first presidential debate will be held on June 27th, 2024 and the Republicans are heading to Milwaukee (a city Donald Trump recently called “horrible” and crime-ridden). Lilly Goren and Susan Liebell had a wide ranging discussion including analysis of the upcoming debate, summer conventions, party platforms, and polling with three experts. Dr. Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and a prolific media commentator on politics. Her scholarship focuses on the American presidency, political parties, political communication and American political development. Her most recent public facing pieces on are “Making sense of the 2024 election:When nothing seems to make sense, social science can still help” and “Checking in on Biden and Political Time.” Dr. Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who focuses on US politics, Political Parties, Congress the Presidency, Elections, and Democracy. He is now co-writing Good Politics/Bad Politics (a “plain newsletter about government and elections in the U.S.”) with Julia and David S. Bernstein. He recently wrote “How Debates Work. And all the things they don't - and shouldn't – do” and “Trump Acts Like an Idiot. Don't Blame It on Age.” Dr. Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Politics at the University of Denver. He writes about political parties, American Politics, polarization, nominations, state legislatures, social networks, campaigns and elections. He can be found on Substack as Tusk and recently published “When debates are no longer automatic:Why Biden and Trump are debating and what they hope to get out of it” and “The Republican State Party Network: A deeper dive into party platforms, with some raised eyebrows at Michigan.“ During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari and Seth Masket's June 27 live-blog of the first Presidential Debate will be at Arena. Follow them on social media for updates on what will be a GREAT conversation. Nat Cohen, “If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.” New York Times, 6/15/24 (on infrequent voters) Seth Masket, “It's not just Texas State GOPs veer to the extremes on policy and democracy.” 6/7/24 (on extremism in state party platforms) Erika Franklin Fowler, 6/19/24 Bluesky post on advertising when candidates are well-known The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project available here and summarized on Jenn White with Todd Swillich on podcast 1A, “If You Can Keep It” (on conservative nationalist “platform” that is not authored by GOP). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The first presidential debate will be held on June 27th, 2024 and the Republicans are heading to Milwaukee (a city Donald Trump recently called “horrible” and crime-ridden). Lilly Goren and Susan Liebell had a wide ranging discussion including analysis of the upcoming debate, summer conventions, party platforms, and polling with three experts. Dr. Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and a prolific media commentator on politics. Her scholarship focuses on the American presidency, political parties, political communication and American political development. Her most recent public facing pieces on are “Making sense of the 2024 election:When nothing seems to make sense, social science can still help” and “Checking in on Biden and Political Time.” Dr. Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who focuses on US politics, Political Parties, Congress the Presidency, Elections, and Democracy. He is now co-writing Good Politics/Bad Politics (a “plain newsletter about government and elections in the U.S.”) with Julia and David S. Bernstein. He recently wrote “How Debates Work. And all the things they don't - and shouldn't – do” and “Trump Acts Like an Idiot. Don't Blame It on Age.” Dr. Seth Masket is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on Politics at the University of Denver. He writes about political parties, American Politics, polarization, nominations, state legislatures, social networks, campaigns and elections. He can be found on Substack as Tusk and recently published “When debates are no longer automatic:Why Biden and Trump are debating and what they hope to get out of it” and “The Republican State Party Network: A deeper dive into party platforms, with some raised eyebrows at Michigan.“ During the podcast, we mentioned: Julia Azari and Seth Masket's June 27 live-blog of the first Presidential Debate will be at Arena. Follow them on social media for updates on what will be a GREAT conversation. Nat Cohen, “If Everyone Voted, Would Biden Benefit? Not Anymore.” New York Times, 6/15/24 (on infrequent voters) Seth Masket, “It's not just Texas State GOPs veer to the extremes on policy and democracy.” 6/7/24 (on extremism in state party platforms) Erika Franklin Fowler, 6/19/24 Bluesky post on advertising when candidates are well-known The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project available here and summarized on Jenn White with Todd Swillich on podcast 1A, “If You Can Keep It” (on conservative nationalist “platform” that is not authored by GOP). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos being held for IVF are children according to the state's laws. While the state government has now introduced bills to protect IVF, the decision has opened a can of worms - what would it mean for an embryo to have the same rights as a child? Can you claim a frozen embryo on your taxes? How would that conflict with the rights of a person carrying an embryo? Dr. Susan Liebell, professor of political science at Saint Joseph's University, explains the case and the political climate that led to this decision, and what the implications could be nationwide. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality have been documented by social scientists – but the public conversation and scholarship on inequality has not examined the role of state law and state courts in establishing policies that significantly affect inequality. Political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson analyze their original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century to demonstrate how state high courts craft policy. The fifty state supreme courts shape American inequality in two ways: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as "upperdogs").  The book focuses on court-made public policy on issues including educational equity and adequacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and worker's rights. The conventional wisdom assumes that courts protect underdogs from majorities but Gibson and Nelson demonstrate that judges most often favor dominant political elites and coalitions. As such, courts are unlikely to serve as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States. James Gibson is the Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government at Washington University in Saint Louis. His research interests are in Law and Politics, Comparative Politics, and American Politics. Michael Nelson is a Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He studies judicial politics and U.S. state politics, especially public attitudes toward law and courts, judicial behavior, and the politics of court reform. Michael was a guest on the New Books Network for the The Elevator Effect, a book he co-wrote with Morgan Hazelton and Rachael K. Hinkle in 2023. In the podcast, we mention Dr. Gibson's brand new article regarding the Dobbs abortion case: “Losing legitimacy: The challenges of the Dobbs ruling to conventional legitimacy theory” from the American Journal of Political Science. Daniela Lavergne served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The role of mother is often celebrated in the United States as the most important job in the world but Dr. Caitlin Killian argues that American motherhood is increasingly monitored and perilous. From preconception, through pregnancy, and while parenting, she argues that women are held to ever-higher standards and punished – both socially and criminally – for failing to live up to these norms. Using historical accounts, public health pronouncements, social psychological research, and course cases, Failing Moms: Social Condemnation and Criminalization of Mothers (Polity Press, 2023) documents how women of all ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses have been interrogated, held against their will, and jailed for a rapidly expanding list of offenses such as falling down the stairs while pregnant or letting a child spend time alone in a park, actions that were not considered criminal a generation ago. While poor mothers and moms of color are targeted the most, Dr. Killian argues that all moms are in jeopardy, whether they realize it or not. Women and mothers are disproportionately held accountable compared to men and fathers who do not see their reproduction policed and almost never incur charges for “failure to protect.” The gendered inequality of prosecutions reveals them to be more about controlling women than protecting children. Other books have examined the specific risks to either pregnant or parenting women – but few connect the issues – and that is Dr. Killian's goal. Using a reproductive justice lens, she analyzes the extent of the crisis and what must change to prevent mass penalization and provide resources to allow people to mother well. Dr. Caitlin Killian is a professor of sociology at Drew University specializing in gender, families, reproduction, and immigration. She has worked as a consultant for the United Nations, developing the module on sexual and reproductive health and rights for UN staff training and co-authoring a UNDP report on Syrian refugee women. Her articles have appeared in Contexts magazine and The Conversation, and she has published in numerous academic journals about adoption, overblown warnings about women's alcohol consumption during pregnancy, sexual and reproductive health and justice, and immigrant and refugee women. Dr. Killian mentions: Michele Goodwin, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood Renee Almeling, GUYnecology: The Missing Science of Men's Reproductive Health Jeanne Flavin, Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction Miranda R. Waggoner, The Zero Trimester: Pre-Pregnancy Care and the Politics of Reproductive Risk Cynthia Daniels, Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction Kim Brooks, Small Animals: Parenthood in the Age of Fear  George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The United States has more guns than people and more gun violence than any Western democracy. Scholars in diverse fields interrogate why 21st century Americans support gun ownership and valorize vigilantism even as they fear gun violence. Many question how the NRA – National Rifle Association – has successfully lobbied for radical gun laws that most Americans don't support.  In Race, Rights, and Rifles: The Origins of the NRA and Contemporary Gun Culture (U Chicago Press, 2023), Dr. Alexandra Filindra highlights political culture. She argues that the NRA depends upon political narratives that can be traced back to the American Revolution. Rather than focus on the constitution, Lockean liberalism, rule of law, or individual rights, she argues that the American Revolution depended upon classical republican ideals – especially the martial virtue of the citizen-soldier – that became foundational to American democracy. American gun culture fuses the republican citizen-soldier with White male supremacy to create what Filindra calls ascriptive martial republicanism. Her book demonstrates how the militarized understandings of political membership prominent in NRA narratives and embraced by many White Americans fit within this broader revolutionary ideology. Even as contemporary NRA narratives embrace 18th and 19th century versions of ascriptive martial republicanism, the NRA radically decouples political virtue and military service by associating virtue with the consumer act of purchasing a firearm. Rather than emphasizing military service or preparedness, consumer choice defines the politically virtuous citizen. White Amerians embrace this combination of civic republicanism and White male supremacy but Filindra's research shows that they also hold a competing form of republicanism (inclusive republicanism) that includes a commitment to peaceful political engagement, civic forms of voluntarism and participation, and a strong belief in multiculturalism. In the podcast, Susan mentions previous podcasts on Katherine Franke's Repair: Redeeming the Promise of Abolition and Drew McKevitt's Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America. Dr. Alexandra Filindra is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. She specializes in American gun politics, immigration policy, race and ethnic politics, public opinion, and political psychology. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

We often narrate the history of women's rights in the United States by focusing on the fight for suffrage. Yet starting as early as 1835, states expanded married women's economic rights. How were these statutes passed at a time when women's political power was severely constrained, including no right to vote in most states? With limited national coordination?  In In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women's Rights Before Suffrage (Columbia UP, 2023), Dr. Sara Chatfield argues that married women's property rights reform occurred through a two-level process. Within each state, policy developed and cycled through different state-level institutions. Without explicit coordination, these policies spread throughout the states with institutional actors borrowing, copying, and learning from the successes and failures of other states – such that ALL states passed some reform by 1920. Dr. Chatfield's important contribution to the American political development literature shows how male legislators pursued legislation that served their own interests and how state legislatures and courts interacted to create property reforms essential to changing economics, the project of permanently seizing land from Native people, and protecting slaveholding women and families from economic instability. The reform of property rights included both property as a commodity and also a means of social control and order. Dr. Chatfield's book furthers our understanding of how gender, federalism, and liberalism interacted in the development of state power. In the podcast, Dr. Chatfield generously cites the works of others including Disenfranchising Democracy: Constructing the Electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (my NBN interview with Dr. Bateman here), Emily Zackin and Chloe N. Thurston's The Political Development of American Debt Relief (Chicago), and Alena Wolflink's Claiming Value:The Politics of Priority from Aristotle to Black Lives Matter (Routledge). Dr. Sara Chatfield is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver, where she teaches classes on American politics and law. Her research interests focus on American politics, especially American political development, gender and politics, and methods. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

We often narrate the history of women's rights in the United States by focusing on the fight for suffrage. Yet starting as early as 1835, states expanded married women's economic rights. How were these statutes passed at a time when women's political power was severely constrained, including no right to vote in most states? With limited national coordination?  In In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women's Rights Before Suffrage (Columbia UP, 2023), Dr. Sara Chatfield argues that married women's property rights reform occurred through a two-level process. Within each state, policy developed and cycled through different state-level institutions. Without explicit coordination, these policies spread throughout the states with institutional actors borrowing, copying, and learning from the successes and failures of other states – such that ALL states passed some reform by 1920. Dr. Chatfield's important contribution to the American political development literature shows how male legislators pursued legislation that served their own interests and how state legislatures and courts interacted to create property reforms essential to changing economics, the project of permanently seizing land from Native people, and protecting slaveholding women and families from economic instability. The reform of property rights included both property as a commodity and also a means of social control and order. Dr. Chatfield's book furthers our understanding of how gender, federalism, and liberalism interacted in the development of state power. In the podcast, Dr. Chatfield generously cites the works of others including Disenfranchising Democracy: Constructing the Electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (my NBN interview with Dr. Bateman here), Emily Zackin and Chloe N. Thurston's The Political Development of American Debt Relief (Chicago), and Alena Wolflink's Claiming Value:The Politics of Priority from Aristotle to Black Lives Matter (Routledge). Dr. Sara Chatfield is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver, where she teaches classes on American politics and law. Her research interests focus on American politics, especially American political development, gender and politics, and methods. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

We often narrate the history of women's rights in the United States by focusing on the fight for suffrage. Yet starting as early as 1835, states expanded married women's economic rights. How were these statutes passed at a time when women's political power was severely constrained, including no right to vote in most states? With limited national coordination?  In In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women's Rights Before Suffrage (Columbia UP, 2023), Dr. Sara Chatfield argues that married women's property rights reform occurred through a two-level process. Within each state, policy developed and cycled through different state-level institutions. Without explicit coordination, these policies spread throughout the states with institutional actors borrowing, copying, and learning from the successes and failures of other states – such that ALL states passed some reform by 1920. Dr. Chatfield's important contribution to the American political development literature shows how male legislators pursued legislation that served their own interests and how state legislatures and courts interacted to create property reforms essential to changing economics, the project of permanently seizing land from Native people, and protecting slaveholding women and families from economic instability. The reform of property rights included both property as a commodity and also a means of social control and order. Dr. Chatfield's book furthers our understanding of how gender, federalism, and liberalism interacted in the development of state power. In the podcast, Dr. Chatfield generously cites the works of others including Disenfranchising Democracy: Constructing the Electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (my NBN interview with Dr. Bateman here), Emily Zackin and Chloe N. Thurston's The Political Development of American Debt Relief (Chicago), and Alena Wolflink's Claiming Value:The Politics of Priority from Aristotle to Black Lives Matter (Routledge). Dr. Sara Chatfield is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver, where she teaches classes on American politics and law. Her research interests focus on American politics, especially American political development, gender and politics, and methods. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

We often narrate the history of women's rights in the United States by focusing on the fight for suffrage. Yet starting as early as 1835, states expanded married women's economic rights. How were these statutes passed at a time when women's political power was severely constrained, including no right to vote in most states? With limited national coordination?  In In Her Own Name: The Politics of Women's Rights Before Suffrage (Columbia UP, 2023), Dr. Sara Chatfield argues that married women's property rights reform occurred through a two-level process. Within each state, policy developed and cycled through different state-level institutions. Without explicit coordination, these policies spread throughout the states with institutional actors borrowing, copying, and learning from the successes and failures of other states – such that ALL states passed some reform by 1920. Dr. Chatfield's important contribution to the American political development literature shows how male legislators pursued legislation that served their own interests and how state legislatures and courts interacted to create property reforms essential to changing economics, the project of permanently seizing land from Native people, and protecting slaveholding women and families from economic instability. The reform of property rights included both property as a commodity and also a means of social control and order. Dr. Chatfield's book furthers our understanding of how gender, federalism, and liberalism interacted in the development of state power. In the podcast, Dr. Chatfield generously cites the works of others including Disenfranchising Democracy: Constructing the Electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (my NBN interview with Dr. Bateman here), Emily Zackin and Chloe N. Thurston's The Political Development of American Debt Relief (Chicago), and Alena Wolflink's Claiming Value:The Politics of Priority from Aristotle to Black Lives Matter (Routledge). Dr. Sara Chatfield is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver, where she teaches classes on American politics and law. Her research interests focus on American politics, especially American political development, gender and politics, and methods. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The United States has more guns than people – a condition that is “unprecedented in world history.” Scholars often focus on gun culture, the Second Amendment, or the history of gun safety, duties, and rights. Often, people assume that the number of guns is a natural state – the guns were always there. But were the guns always there? What caused the drastic boom in firearms, and when did it happen? In Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America (UNC Press, 2023), Dr. Andrew McKevitt investigates how and when the guns arrived – and why so many people bought them. McKevitt argues that what Americans refer to as “gun culture” in the 21st century “emerged out of the intersections of the Cold War and consumer capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s.” A booming consumer market following World War II coupled with a surplus of cheap firearms readily available for American entrepreneurs to resell to citizens laid the groundwork for rampant firearm distribution in the country. War made the United States into a “gun country” but US gun politics – “interwoven with struggles over race and gender” cannot be detached from consumer politics. Gun safety and gun rights organizations both demand consumer regulation and protection. Dr. Andrew C. McKevitt is the John D. Winters Endowed Professor of History at Louisiana Tech University. His previous book, Consuming Japan: Popular Culture and the Globalizing of 1980s America (2017) was published by the University of North Carolina Press and he received the Stuart L. Bernath Scholarly Article Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The United States has more guns than people – a condition that is “unprecedented in world history.” Scholars often focus on gun culture, the Second Amendment, or the history of gun safety, duties, and rights. Often, people assume that the number of guns is a natural state – the guns were always there. But were the guns always there? What caused the drastic boom in firearms, and when did it happen? In Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America (UNC Press, 2023), Dr. Andrew McKevitt investigates how and when the guns arrived – and why so many people bought them. McKevitt argues that what Americans refer to as “gun culture” in the 21st century “emerged out of the intersections of the Cold War and consumer capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s.” A booming consumer market following World War II coupled with a surplus of cheap firearms readily available for American entrepreneurs to resell to citizens laid the groundwork for rampant firearm distribution in the country. War made the United States into a “gun country” but US gun politics – “interwoven with struggles over race and gender” cannot be detached from consumer politics. Gun safety and gun rights organizations both demand consumer regulation and protection. Dr. Andrew C. McKevitt is the John D. Winters Endowed Professor of History at Louisiana Tech University. His previous book, Consuming Japan: Popular Culture and the Globalizing of 1980s America (2017) was published by the University of North Carolina Press and he received the Stuart L. Bernath Scholarly Article Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The United States has more guns than people – a condition that is “unprecedented in world history.” Scholars often focus on gun culture, the Second Amendment, or the history of gun safety, duties, and rights. Often, people assume that the number of guns is a natural state – the guns were always there. But were the guns always there? What caused the drastic boom in firearms, and when did it happen? In Gun Country: Gun Capitalism, Culture, and Control in Cold War America (UNC Press, 2023), Dr. Andrew McKevitt investigates how and when the guns arrived – and why so many people bought them. McKevitt argues that what Americans refer to as “gun culture” in the 21st century “emerged out of the intersections of the Cold War and consumer capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s.” A booming consumer market following World War II coupled with a surplus of cheap firearms readily available for American entrepreneurs to resell to citizens laid the groundwork for rampant firearm distribution in the country. War made the United States into a “gun country” but US gun politics – “interwoven with struggles over race and gender” cannot be detached from consumer politics. Gun safety and gun rights organizations both demand consumer regulation and protection. Dr. Andrew C. McKevitt is the John D. Winters Endowed Professor of History at Louisiana Tech University. His previous book, Consuming Japan: Popular Culture and the Globalizing of 1980s America (2017) was published by the University of North Carolina Press and he received the Stuart L. Bernath Scholarly Article Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The Supreme Court recently heard a case that challenges whether someone who is under a domestic violence restraining order should have access to a gun. Dr. Susan Liebell, professor of political science at Saint Joseph's University, joins us to talk about the case, United States vs. Rahimi. We discuss the impact it could have and how this shines a spotlight on the court's decision last year in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Over the past 40 years, lawmakers in America's two major political parties have taken increasingly extreme positions on ideological issues. Voters from the two parties have become increasingly distinct and hostile to one another along the lines of race, religion, geography, and culture. In Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), Dr. Dannagal Goldthwaite Young illustrates how political leaders and media organizations capitalize on social and cultural identities to separate, enrage, and mobilize people. Because humans are motivated to comprehend, to feel in control, and to be part of a community, they seek information that satisfies these needs – including misinformation that favors their political team. They don't want to be wrong. Bringing together tools from political science, communications, and social psychology, Dr. Goldthwaite Young creates a model to explain how public officials, journalists, and social media platforms encourage what she calls identity distillation. Dr. Young both describes the dynamics and provides suggestions for how to disrupt “identity-driven wrongness.” These include journalists abandoning conflict framing in the coverage of politics, social media platforms increasing transparency about their algorithmic content rankings and ad targeting, and individuals cultivating intellectual humility and disrupting performances of political identity to increase the demand for democracy-centered political information. Dr. Dannagal Goldthwaite Young is a professor of Communications and Political Science at the University of Delaware. Her areas of expertise include political media effects, media psychology, public opinion, and the psychology of misinformation. I'm delighted to welcome her to the New Books Network. George Lobis served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Where do Asian Americans fit into the U.S. racial order? How do we understand anti-Asian racism in relation to structural anti-Blackness? Are Asian Americans subordinated comparably to Black people or permitted adjacency to whiteness? For Dr. Claire Jean Kim, the police murder of George Floyd and the surge in anti-Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic make these questions urgent – and the answers may alter the US racial order. In Asian Americans in an Anti-Black World (Cambridge UP, 2023), Dr. Kim argues that understanding US racial dynamics requires careful analysis of two forces: anti-Blackness and white supremacy. Dr. Kim's meticulously researched book treats White supremacy and anti-Blackness as “kinetic forces or energy flows that have shaped and been shaped by the structural regimes of slavery, colonialism, capitalism, settler colonialism, and empire across the globe.” White supremacy lifts up one group as it pushes down all others. Anti-Blackness “abjects Blackness and elevates not-Blackness.” Based on her detailed analysis of law, history, and politics, Dr. Kim demonstrates how Asian Americans are “dynamically constituted as not-white, but above all not-Black” – and that Not-Blackness is a “vital form of property in an anti-Black world.” The construction of Asian Americans as not-white but above all not-Black has determined their positionality for nearly two centuries. Asian Americans are “dynamically positioned and weaponized by the U.S. state as it seeks to preserve structural anti-Blackness.” How Asian Americans choose to respond to their not-Black status will help to define racial politics in the U.S. in the twenty-first century. Can “Asian Americanness be reimagined as a force that destabilizes, rather than stabilizes, an anti-Black world? Dr. Claire Jean Kim is Professor of Political Science and Asian American Studies at University of California, Irvine, where she teaches classes on race, politics, and human-animal studies. She is the author of two previous award-winning books, Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City (Yale University Press, 2000) and Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Susan Liebell is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies